Smells like BS — under present law there is no requirement for a warrant or probable cause or anything of the sort to wiretap Iraqis. I think someone’s confused here.
“Smells like BS — under present law there is no requirement for a warrant or probable cause or anything of the sort to wiretap Iraqis. I think someone’s confused here.”
My understanding is that they can get a warrant after the fact if they need to act immediately. If somebody thought they needed a warrant then they didn’t understand the law. FISA has always allowed for this.
The FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied. "
“I think someone’s confused here.”
Someone is definitely confused and it’s you. Read the rest of the posts and you may understand what is going on.
If they are in Iraq or other Turd World location, or anywhere but the US... well maybe. To tap their email, which might go through US providers or servers, that might be a horse of a different color, to the lawyers at least.
This is not a problem with the law. This whoe argument is by, about and for DOJ attorneys. Once again, this is on this administration. I wish it were not so, but this is so typical of the second raters Bush has put in as agency heads and the third and fourth raters that they have promoted through the bureaucracy.
You're right. The part where the author says, "The FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied," isn't the least bit true.
Iraq is foreign. Therefore it is foreign intelligence, and under the rhelm of the US Military and the CIA. They don’t need approval to wiretap overseas, they can and should just do it in this case, to hell with what some legal weenie says.